Protestant Reformation in the Rise of Modern Science - Essay Example

Student’s Name Instructor’s Name Course Date Protestant Reformation in the Rise of Modern Science The protestant reformation which caused a lot of shifts in religious and theological reasoning was among the considered causes of scientific revolution in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. According to the historical and philosophical thoughts, protestants reformations changed various thoughts and values as per the development of modern science (Shea and Marion 130). Therefore, various interpretations on religion and theological attitudes brought about by various Protestants made a direct influence on science. Relating to the conflicts of Protestantism modern science developed as another movement relative to its expansion. In the rise of modern science in conjunction with the shifts Protestantism has brought in religion and theological views it has greatly influenced science revolution. The conflicts between the church as a religion and science, it would be difficult to interpret amongst various philosophers. Levinson (425) claim that lately the church tradition has become a developing factor on the modern science which are majorly the Copernican science and Aristotelian science. According to the theological views, philosophers have advocated for some of the scientific views relating them with their ideologies. As a result, the biblical views and the scientific views in support have become the basis of the first church trial and censure. The conviction of some philosophers like Galileo, on suspicion of their unorthodoxy proved major arguments between science and church. The claims on the applications to the church and the modern science have provided important lessons that is needed to relate the two. Some philosophers point of view explained that the universe is spherical and set with a stationary Earth at its center. The argument was a thought in philosophy and science which was then reconciled with the theological wisdom. The church and the science explains that the universe is a sphere containing unchanging bodies like stars, sun and planets that are in turn prime motion and unmoved (Groopman 166-167). In addition, the bibles ideologies introduced by the Protestants had morals and spiritual senses of Scripture passages. The moral and spiritual senses on the scriptures introduced by the Protestants later then led to expansion of five senses which are noticed in the modern science. The mixture of philosophy and theology sometimes become intertwined. The symbolic factors of science as interpreted gave rise due to the changes and reformations of the brands of the Church mostly the Protestantism. The approach of the new Christianity as per the philosophers, it was accepted but not to the extreme extents. The changing of the trends can sometimes become impossible since the theology and the science traditions are recognized as equal in the authority with the written bible. Also, the rebirth of the philosophy reinforced science which was already embedded in the theology. Reformed Christianity corrects the errors anticipated in science such as the acceptance of an Earth-centered cosmos in the theme of Renaissance. The philosophers who believed in Renaissance theme are the philosophers who are refined with theology and astronomy knowledge. The scientific rules about the rotation of the earth with the sun being at the center, and the earth and other planets circumnavigating the sun, philosophers still use the knowledge to explain theology with the science today (Hick 57). Galileo’s science ideologies with Christianity were not rivals. Contrary, the protestants argue against Galileo’s contribution as a refusal to abandon the traditions which they referred to as outdated and incorrect. The view of the universe and everything in it failed to compare the traditional and the current science. At that particular time scientists had different views as compared to the current situation where reformation of Church came about and influenced science in another way. According to my argument, the church is not anti-scientific as most of the support and influence have been seen in the modern science. In the later years, the Protestants worked for scientific ideologies as they tried to raise funds for the scientists in various projects. Harrison (20) argues that the clerics within the church acted upon the scientific contributions which was also notable till the current years of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The scientists as per the philosophers worked on certain scientific discoveries and then later presented to the church clergies. The contributions were particularly based on the heliocentricity. Even though there were doubts on the protestants reactions, as a result it was not as it was expected. As far as Howell is concerned, there were doubts from many people about the proved heliocentricity, some philosophers who engaged in the matter of Christianity and science could not prove their argument (21). The argument was based on the matter of if heliocentrism is actually true. The scriptures would relate to this argument but philosopher known as Aristotle could not relate to Galileo’s truth. And so, he believed that if heliocentricity was actually true, then there would be shifts in the position of the stars. It would only happen when there would be movements of the earth in its orbit around the sun (McGrath 11). Therefore, to date the truth of Galileo is then documented maintaining the Protestants reaction remaining positive. When Galileo gave or rather documented some evidences about scientific discoveries there were separate responses. From the modern science, the debate from different Protestant churches were based on hostility and enthusiasm but still they later came to support his evidences. According to Harrison (44), after defending his scientific views and making the Protestants fully satisfied, then it comes out clearly that Church has majorly influenced the modern science. The goal of promoting the scientific view of the world was so vulnerable to the reformed Church and Christianity. As a matter of fact, it would be supported from the evidence that came from the passionate nature of Galileo to make the Church accept science contributed and become the critical factor towards encouraging modern science in the current centuries. Anti-Catholic churches gave science a room to maneuver even though there were still conflicts in religion and science. According to a number of philosophers, a number of truths were asserted about the developing science. As far as Hick (56-57) is concerned, the assertions could not make change the kind of attachment they have had with science. For instance, the problem which was introduced claimed that Aristotle’s science was getting out of formation. Despite the idea, Protestant church kept on clinging Aristotle scientific views. The distinctions between the introduced science and Christian teachings made no separations as science and Christianity were considered a single combination. Harrison (41) argues that the matters of theological questions and matters of science were outlined in the sixteenth century by Galileo. It was that time when the non-Catholics became more concerned about Galileo opinions on Copernican science and they even stopped him from campaigning on the same. Later on, Protestants came to understand that there were no Biblical contradictions in the idea of Copernican science. The support of Christianity then comes clearly on this after the Protestants discovered that Galileo ideas went in hand with the Scriptures. The ideas of science were proved that they did not contradict the Scriptural truth. Then, they were highly understood when they could not contradict the Scripture. Copernicus (16) explains that the interpretation of religion and theology dealing with science were combined together in the modern role played with science. Even though there are different views on the matter of science and theology, that science should be left alone with religion, the Aristotelian and Copernican science are still not challenged. It came after the decision or rather the conclusion about the mobility of Earth always being not contrary to the Bible. On the other hand, there were explanations that the Scripture and Science should not be literally interpreted. It gave science to develop with time under the guidance of religion as more ideas were based on Biblical references till modern days. The two-modern science Copernican and Aristotelian stated that they both warned the Church against the challenges they were about to face (Howell 15). In the matters of faith in connection with permanency of science ideologies like sun and Earth, there are risks of having heretics criticism on those who are likely to declare Earth to stand still and the sun to change its position eventually. Theologically, it would be proved either physically or logically that the sun stands still as the Earth moves. It is then where Galileo illustrates this through proofs of the Bible on who moves the Earth from its original place. And as before, the mobility of the earth is concluded not to be contrary theology ideas. Nevertheless, science in comparison with Bible according to the Protestants, science ideologies accommodates the beliefs and never calls it void. Some verses in the Scripture can actually be confirmed whether they are true and scientifically written down. The modern science in simple terms, it is explained that it never ignored Protestants Scripture in any form. “The reality about this was proved relating to the truth portrayed on the Scriptural truth. In other words, some philosophers believe that science opposes the truth but not the meaning of the Bible” (Stenmark 110). Such an idea was imagined by the Christians and even went beyond comprehension of what was in the Scriptures. It was then taken into account by Christians to put the matter under consideration associating every matter of science with the Scriptures. On another background, Protestants believed that they were the true religion based on the appropriate faith. And so, the reformation was believed to give rise and influence the modern science. The principle of human authority which was part of Catholic beliefs, made it difficult for Protestants to adopt some scientific truths since they believed in Christ (Copernicus 16). Therefore, their spiritual freedom though contradicted science, they still were in a position of remaining the influence towards scientific contribution. The orthodox concept of science was not criticized so much by the Protestants since Galileo was a man of science as well as man of faith who believed in Christ. The Church had no problem with these solid orthodox views. Shea and Mariano (23) argues that Galileo was a man of faith as well as science. It pushed for science to where it is currently. There never would have been modern science were it not for the Reformation in the realm of science, it is according to various philosophers who are in the modern world. According to McGrath (13), the modern scientific endeavors and investigations got controlled by the supporting hands of church. It has created the liberty of science in the society. Philosophers can relate with the historians by explaining what is entailed between Christianity and science through Biblical or Scientific analysis. It is contrary to the Catholics who maintains the apostate and heterical views. And the true science is only opposed with the true evangelical faith due to sheer ignorance of history. It has caused many modern scientists believe that Protestantism is against the rise of science. This shift and Reformations mainly amongst the Protestants as the patron of sciences is not only literally contested by conflicts, but also by a lasting intellectual clash between theology and science. Lipton (34) states that the achievements realized between the two has made philosophers remain enlightened in terms of purpose and instincts observed between Church and science. Despite the divided ideas, new scientific ideas as in the Galileo views get challenge by religion powers and authority. Nonetheless, the rise in modern science have been seen and discovered through these challenges as they are considered the factors of change. In conclusion, the religious authorities especially the Protestantism Reformation have increasingly influenced the modern science. Scientific view upon the Bible according to philosophy, has also influenced theology. Therefore, the scientific observations have been influenced by the interpretations of Scriptures. And on the other hand, those scientific idea which opposes the Biblical teachings have been abandoned. It is then clear that scientific developments have been influenced by the theological factors. Ma has been made a factor to this as they hold the name Christianity and this is according to Galileo point of view. Works Cited Harrison, Peter. "The Bible and the emergence of modern science." (2006). Copernicus, Nicholas. "The Copernican Revolution." Scientific Revolutions: Primary Texts in the History of Science (2004): 16. Howell, Kenneth James. God's two books: Copernican cosmology and biblical interpretation in early modern science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002. Stenmark, Mikael. "Models of Science and Religion: Is there any Alternative to Ian Barbour's Typology?." (2005): 105-119. Groopman, Jerome. "God on the Brain." The New Yorker 17 (2001): 165-168. Hick, John. "The Neurosciences’ Challenge to Religious Experience." The New Frontier of Religion and Science. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2010. 55-66. Levinson, Martin H. "Science versus religion: a false dichotomy?." ETC: A Review of General Semantics 63.4 (2006): 422-429. Harrison, Peter. "Reinterpreting nature in early modern Europe: Natural philosophy, biblical exegesis and the contemplative life." The Word and the World. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2007. 25-44. McGrath, Alister E. Luther's theology of the cross: Martin Luther's theological breakthrough. John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Shea, William R., and Mariano Artigas. Galileo in Rome: The rise and fall of a troublesome genius. Oxford University Press, 2003. Lipton, Peter. "Science and religion: The immersion solution." Realism and religion: Philosophical and theological perspectives (2007): 31-46. Read More